So Philly wants the lockout to end. Ok. The same could have probably been said in 1994 and 2004 at this point. In 94, when the other owners got on board with them, it established the framework for the gigantic downward spiral that followed.

Basically, I don't think philly's opinion on this is terribly valid. But I guess if a team like Pittsburgh, who is at best slightly above break even with their profits, is agreeing with them...maybe there's something to that. But Pittsburgh is in the tough spot of losing a year with the 2 best players in the world in their primes. They may be a little skewed here.

shmenguin wrote:So Philly wants the lockout to end. Ok. The same could have probably been said in 1994 and 2004 at this point. In 94, when the other owners got on board with them, it established the framework for the gigantic downward spiral that followed.

Basically, I don't think philly's opinion on this is terribly valid. But I guess if a team like Pittsburgh, who is at best slightly above break even with their profits, is agreeing with them...maybe there's something to that. But Pittsburgh is in the tough spot of losing a year with the 2 best players in the world in their primes. They may be a little skewed here.

I kind of agree, I thought the point was for long term health. How do other teams feel? Example, I am sure the NY Giants and Dallas Cowboys were fine with a lot more than San Diego.

That being said if it ends the lockout and it helps we have that but I guess all in all I am not 100% sold that that certain teams have the best interest in the league on their minds.

In the end I am not exactly sure what this new development really means.

I wonder if Philadelphia's ownership would have any reason to get this thing moving outside of Pittsburgh's motives...it's almost like Philadelphia's owners are involved with the channel(s) that broadcasts hockey and is paying for the NHL but not receiving any ad revenue from the purchase...but that can't be it...it must be something though...

According to this it appears that "losing money" at least in one particular case is just creative accounting. It makes one wonder how much of the accounting is accurate and how much is done to not pay taxes.

I think a lot of people get hung up on owners getting regular cash payout from the team on par with what players get. The truth is one is a job (players) and one is an investment (owners). If this article (http://www.davemanuel.com/nhl-franchise ... ckout-135/) is to be believed, then the average franchise value has gone up about $10 million a year every year for the last 8 seaons. While this isn't a weekly paycheck like the players (job) pays, it is quite a nice return (on the investment). So the notion that owners are losing their skin only holds water if you exclude the value and appreciation of the asset -- which is, quite honestly, a poor way to judge the financial position of a business.

Honestly i really think the Owners and Bettman almost got enough at this point of the negotiations. If they get a 50/50 split and a revenue sharing plan in place that should be enough for the league to become healthier. The contracting rights i see this is where the problems come in. If the owners can re-write the CBA to "handcuff" the GMs to not circumvent the cap, i think that is enough other contracting rights should be allowed to stand as is.

no name wrote:Ok does anyone know what "decertification of the NHLPA" would mean?? I read an article that said the players union is concidering this, somehow what i get from this is that it goes to court???

According to this it appears that "losing money" at least in one particular case is just creative accounting. It makes one wonder how much of the accounting is accurate and how much is done to not pay taxes.

I think a lot of people get hung up on owners getting regular cash payout from the team on par with what players get. The truth is one is a job (players) and one is an investment (owners). If this article (http://www.davemanuel.com/nhl-franchise ... ckout-135/) is to be believed, then the average franchise value has gone up about $10 million a year every year for the last 8 seaons. While this isn't a weekly paycheck like the players (job) pays, it is quite a nice return (on the investment). So the notion that owners are losing their skin only holds water if you exclude the value and appreciation of the asset -- which is, quite honestly, a poor way to judge the financial position of a business.

It's been brought up at length before, most teams over a chunk of time won't increase that much, values are not in line with what you can actually sell for and again this is another issue that has never been in dispute.

The players associations and all involved know that owners can make money selling and to be honest that is the reason the split is only going to be 50-50. If owners didn't have some value they would need a bigger split.

As much as it pains people to admit rich guys do not always own teams for the fun of it, it is a business. There needs to be cash coming back the other way.

And even if the article was 100 percent accurate with no quirks you are looking at adding $300 million in revenue into the pot for the teams or 15% of what the players make. It helps, the Nhlpa knows this and just as the non HRR revenue issue shows, it's simply a non talked about but known revenue stream and part of the negotiation.

Basically, the union members declare that the union no longer represents them.

From this there's two options:- Start or be represented by a new union- Negotiate without a union

Decertification is not usually a smart move by a group unless they already have other representation. What the NFL did is a little different than typical decertification, but it seemed to work for them.

IMHO, it would take a lot more rumblings/frustration from players to lead to decertification as it would put the league in a much better bargaining position.

One major difference that I think the league is forgetting between this lockout and 2004-2005.

When the game came back after a missed season, there were actual improvements to the way the game was played. The NHL in 2005-2006 was a completely different and more exciting game that had stuff improved for both the diehard and the casual fan. New rules, new overtime structure, etc all made the game more exciting and helped take off some of the edge of the lockout. This time, there is nothing like this coming out of this lockout. It is purely legal squabbles that don't really affect the on-ice product. If the NHL thinks the fans will come back the same way, I have a feeling they will be sorely disappointed.

Big Easy Pens Fan wrote:Sounds like the Pens consecutive sellouts streak will be in jeopardy.

BEPF

Why do you say that? Anything specific or just what people have been saying?

I was blasted a lot before on this issue but I think their streak was on life support last season, way too many open seats the day before games, fake student ticket limits and for the first time since pre 2004 lockout the Pens offered us season holders seats to purchase extra playoff packages. Not that I want to go through that again.

But my point is I think if this lockout proves to be even a small detractor I don't see how the streak keeps going.

Big Easy Pens Fan wrote:Sounds like the Pens consecutive sellouts streak will be in jeopardy.

BEPF

Why do you say that? Anything specific or just what people have been saying?

I was blasted a lot before on this issue but I think their streak was on life support last season, way too many open seats the day before games, fake student ticket limits and for the first time since pre 2004 lockout the Pens offered us season holders seats to purchase extra playoff packages. Not that I want to go through that again.

But my point is I think if this lockout proves to be even a small detractor I don't see how the streak keeps going.

If it survives the next season that is played(whenever that is) i'll be surprised. The sellout streak has definitely been BS for a season and a half...only lasting because of season ticket sales. To be fair though, they never claimed it was gate entries.

Big Easy Pens Fan wrote:Sounds like the Pens consecutive sellouts streak will be in jeopardy.

BEPF

Why do you say that? Anything specific or just what people have been saying?

I was blasted a lot before on this issue but I think their streak was on life support last season, way too many open seats the day before games, fake student ticket limits and for the first time since pre 2004 lockout the Pens offered us season holders seats to purchase extra playoff packages. Not that I want to go through that again.

But my point is I think if this lockout proves to be even a small detractor I don't see how the streak keeps going.

If it survives the next season that is played(whenever that is) i'll be surprised. The sellout streak has definitely been BS for a season and a half...only lasting because of season ticket sales. To be fair though, they never claimed it was gate entries.

If it wasn't for student rush tickets that streak would of ended a long time ago. Not that our attendance still wouldn't be really good for thoes games, but a sell out would not of happened.

This is the 65% that Daly was talking about. These charts were created by the NHL, implementing demands by Fehr and the PA.

Thing that pisses me off is how ignorant these players are. They expect to get paid for a full season, even if there is no money coming in. Because the owners are going to magically create cash out of thin air. Whatever will be made this year will be distributed between the owners and players, so both sides are to lose a %. Smartest thing would be for the players to start playing or they're just going to lose more money. Since many owners were either barely staying afloat or losing money, they can wait indefinitely. Fehr has these morons convinced they're going to break the owners at some point, but he doesn't realize he's against some very smart people who know math apparently a lot better than the players.

Mikey is right. Fehr is a terrorist, but this time he's met his match.

The NHL utilized four different assumptions on how to calculate the lost hockey-related revenue from this year. The union wants a "guaranteed" players share of $1.916 billion in Year 1, growing by 1.75% every year, but that never amounts to the 50-50 split, the NHL shows in its charts. In fact, the players would have as high of 70.4% in Year 1 and 52.4% by the last season, 2016-17. Using the lost HRR of 17.5% this year -- which may be greater than that at this point -- and the difference adds up to $1.050 billion.

shmenguin wrote:There will be several winners to this lockout, Pierre. That's kinda the point.

Interested in hearing you think there will be a winner; League loses revenue, Players lose a year of salary, and owners have to spend money to win back fans. I guess I would agree with the KHL being a winner...

despite the doomsday vibe going on, many of the teams that were losing money before the lockout will be making money after the lockout - particularly in the long run. most of the owners will be in a better situation once the dust settles.

I would generally agree since league revenues are up, but ownership isn't without risk, so ultimately the benefits of the situation depends on the deal. I can tell you that, based on the economics, Minnesota was truly gambling on deferments in the Parise/Suter deal.